DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I corresponding to claims 1-9 and 16-20 in the reply filed on February 05, 2026 is acknowledged. Group I is elected with traverse without providing any explanation indication the restriction filed December 05, 2025 is improper.
The invention I and II are independent or distinct. There would be a serious burden on the examiner if the restriction is not required. The invention I and II require a different field of search. For example, group I searches for subject matters of “identifying a set of locations of a UE that are within a threshold distance of a road object corresponding to the first target road; and determining that the UE is associated with the user impression based upon the set of locations meeting a threshold amount of locations” whereas group II requires to search for a angle of a first orientation of the first road object relative to a bearing of the POI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaltzman et al. (US 2021/0136537) in view of Repenning et al. (US 2014/0257747).
Regarding claim 1, Zaltzman discloses a method of identifying a user impression associated with a point of interest (POI) (Abstract; e.g., identifies content objects (e.g., attractions, activities, events, restaurants, businesses, and the like) for each identified content category that are likely to be of interest to the user), the method comprising:
identifying a travel plan of the POI (paragraph [0048]; e.g., The travel system identifies content categories that are likely to be of interest to the user of the travel system based on context characteristics of the user),
wherein the POI is viewable from the travel plan (paragraphs [0047]-[0048]; e.g., inform the user of content objects (e.g., activities, restaurants, attractions, hotels, gatherings, bars, landmarks, a public event and the like) that are likely to be of interest to the user);
determining a plurality of locations of a User Equipment (UE) (paragraphs [0108], [0127]; e.g., A user profile can also include information associated with a user's travels, such as locations the user has visited, content objects associated with locations uploaded by the user, and the like);
identifying a set of locations, of the plurality of locations, that are within a threshold distance of a road object corresponding to the travel plan (paragraphs [0031], [0073]; e.g., If the user's current distance to the content object is greater than the threshold distance) and (paragraph [0127]; e.g., a subset of locations from the identified set of locations for display to the querying user 1102); and
determining that the UE is associated with the impression based upon the set of locations meeting a threshold amount of locations (Claim 40; paragraphs [0024], [0031]; e.g., identify one or more content objects corresponding to the content category, each content object associated with a physical location within a threshold proximity of the location of the user).
Zaltzman discloses a travel system provides travel content to a user, but Zaltzman fails to specifically disclose identifying a first target road of the POI.
However, Repenning discloses identifying a target road of the POI (paragraphs [0008], [0020]; see a POI that is in the direction of travel).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Zaltzman in combination of Repennding as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to identifying a target road of the POI for advantages of enhancing delivering server-controlled point of interest zones and alerts to a user computing device (Repennding: paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 2, Zaltzman in combination with Repennding discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: determining, based upon the plurality of locations, a distance of travel of the UE along the first target road, wherein determining that the UE is associated with the impression is based upon the distance of travel meeting a second threshold distance (Zaltzman: paragraphs [0011], [0024]; e.g., identify one or more content objects corresponding to the content category, each content object associated with a physical location within a threshold proximity of the location of the user).
Regarding claim 3, Zaltzman in combination with Repennding discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: determining, based upon the plurality of locations, a direction of travel of the UE along the first target road, wherein determining that the UE is associated with the impression is based upon the direction of travel matching a viewable direction of the POI (Repennding: paragraphs [0008], [0020]; see a POI that is in the direction of travel).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Zaltzman in combination of Repennding as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to determining a direction of travel of the UE along the first target road, wherein determining that the UE is associated with the impression is based upon the direction of travel matching a viewable direction of the POI for advantages of enhancing delivering server-controlled point of interest zones and alerts to a user computing device.
Regarding claim 4, Zaltzman in combination with Repennding discloses the method of claim 1, comprising:
mapping locations of the plurality of locations to a set of road object locations along the road object (Zaltzman: paragraph [0109], [0112]),
wherein the first target road comprises: a first portion on a first side of the POI (Repennding: paragraphs [0079], [0084]); and a second portion on a second side of the POI (Repennding: : paragraphs [0079], [0084]); and
determining that the UE is associated with the impression based upon the set of road object locations comprising: a first road object location in a first portion of the road object corresponding to the first portion of the first target road; and a second road object location in a second portion of the road object corresponding to the second portion of the first target road (Zaltzman: paragraphs [0048], [0125]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Zaltzman in combination of Repennding as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to have the first target road comprises: a first portion on a first side of the POI; and a second portion on a second side of the POI for advantages of enhancing delivering server-controlled point of interest zones and alerts to a user computing device.
Regarding claim 5, Zaltzman in combination with Repennding discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: determining a distance between the road object and a location of the POI (Zaltzman: paragraphs [0048], [0059]); and determining an angle of an orientation of the road object relative to a bearing of the POI (Repennding: paragraphs [0082], [0084]), wherein the first target road is identified based upon: the distance meeting a second threshold distance; and the angle meeting a threshold angle (Zaltzman: paragraphs [0048], [0059]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Zaltzman in combination of Repennding as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to determining an angle of an orientation of the road object relative to a bearing of the POI for advantages of enhancing delivering server-controlled point of interest zones and alerts to a user computing device.
Regarding claim 6, Zaltzman in combination with Repennding discloses the method of claim 5, comprising: determining a second distance between a second road object corresponding to a second road and the location of the POI; and determining that the second road is not a target road of the POI based upon the second distance not meeting the second threshold distance (Zaltzman: paragraphs [0048], [0059], [0073]).
Regarding claim 7, Zaltzman in combination with Repennding discloses the method of claim 6, comprising: determining a second angle of an orientation of a second road object corresponding to a second road relative to the bearing of the POI; and determining that the second road is not a target road of the POI based upon the second angle not meeting the threshold angle (Repennding: paragraphs [0082], [0085]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Zaltzman in combination of Repennding as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to determining a second angle of an orientation of a second road object corresponding to a second road relative to the bearing of the POI; and determining that the second road is not a target road of the POI based upon the second angle not meeting the threshold angle for advantages of enhancing delivering server-controlled point of interest zones and alerts to a user computing device.
Regarding claim 8, Zaltzman in combination with Repennding discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the plurality of locations of the UE comprises: receiving, from one or more wireless communication sites, one or more communication parameters associated with communication between the UE and the one or more wireless communication sites; and determining, based upon the one or more communication parameters associated with the communication, a location of the UE (Zaltzman: paragraphs [0068]-[0069], [0095]).
Regarding claim 9, Zaltzman in combination with Repennding discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: determining, based upon the plurality of locations, a user type associated with the UE (Zaltzman: paragraphs [0013], [0026]).
Claims 16-20 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that when executed perform operations comprising: code means for generating steps of claims 1-9. Therefore, the same rationale applied to claims 1-9 apply. In addition, Zaltzman in combination with Repennding inherently discloses a computer program product, i.e., given that Zaltzman/Repennding discloses a process, the process would be implemented by a processor that requires a computer program product, e.g., a RAM, to function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY X PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIMOTHY X PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648